/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3474436]

Why did Nabokov write about pedophilia?

[Anonymous No.3474456]

>>3474436
He was a pedo

[Anonymous No.3474461]

because he knew he was too intellectually intimidating for anyone to criticize him about it

[Anonymous No.3474520]

Because he genuinely was a paedophile. There is no way he could outline exactly what it felt like to be attracted to nymphets, not all adolescents, but very particular young girls; that total consumption of the mind and ecstasy a brief brushing of flesh can bring, and not really feel it.

I have felt every word of what he was saying as I'm also drawn towards 'nymphets'.

[Anonymous No.3474529]

Guaranteed publicity

[Anonymous No.3474583]

Hey, guys. Guys... W-what edition of Lolita should I get? The annotated version, the one with the blonde girl eating an apple on the cover or the one with the brunette chick in bikini reading a magazine? They all look great and I can't decide for fucks sake.

[Anonymous No.3474625]

He was a pedo himself. The man was an entomologist for god's sake, think about the psychological implications of that.

[Anonymous No.3474629]

>>3474583
>W-what edition of Lolita should I get?

Get this one - a UK first edition.

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=8001688430&searchurl=bsi%3D60%26kn%3Dlolita%26sortby%3D1%26x%3D0%26y%3D0

[Anonymous No.3474632]

>>3474583
Go for the annotated version. The lengthy introduction is fumbling and pointless (what introduction isn't?), but the notes are useful.

[Anonymous No.3474637]

Why did Gainsbourg write about pedophilia?

No seriously, why did it have to be about that, this is my favorite record ever but the lyrics creep me out.

[Anonymous No.3474638]

>>3474632
>not listening to the audiobook.

http://vocaroo.com/i/s1b5IpWYKl7b

[Anonymous No.3474639]

I don't care what anyone says, "fire of my loins" is the most awkward and hilarious endearment ever.

[Anonymous No.3474641]

>>3474637
gainsbourg is top tier

he wrote about a lot of stuff

[Anonymous No.3474674]

>>3474637
this would actually be really good musical accompaniment to reading Lolita, I get the same sort of feel from both

[Anonymous No.3476514]

>>3474520
>Because he genuinely was a paedophile. There is no way he could outline exactly what it felt like to be attracted to nymphets, not all adolescents, but very particular young girls; that total consumption of the mind and ecstasy a brief brushing of flesh can bring, and not really feel it.
This. As if any further confirmation were needed, in the 1920s he wrote The Enchanter, which explores similar ideas as Lolita (namely the man/girl sexual attraction). However, that book has an abrupt and somehow more disturbing ending.

But I also feel the book is a criticism of US culture at the time.

[Anonymous No.3476519]

Because it was genius to write about something which was supposed to be disgusting but then compensate it by style and poetry.

[Anonymous No.3476518]

>>3474583
You could always get this one.

[Anonymous No.3476522]

>>3476518

thank God that edition is out of print

[Anonymous No.3476529]

>>3476522
Why?

[Anonymous No.3476546]

>>3476529

cause it looks like shit

[Anonymous No.3476593]

Not even read it but ill take a guess. It was to take an idea that was immediately repulsive to his readers and make them understand the motivation behind the pedophile and accept, if not understand it. It was essentially a challenge to himself to see if he could out out-write the instinctive rejection of a pedophile as a person.

[Anonymous No.3476616]

>>3476593
I think I heard somewhere that he himself hated pedophilia

[Anonymous No.3477658]

>>3474638
>listening to audiobooks.
Slow, uncontrollable pace. FUCK YES

[Anonymous No.3477667]

bc why not

[Anonymous No.3477745]

>>3474436
If you think Lolita is about pedophilia then you've got problems son.

[Anonymous No.3477842]

If you didn't get aroused by Lolita, you need to leave /lit/.

[Anonymous No.3478535]

>>3476546
Nah - looks like a nymphet to me.

[Anonymous No.3478547]

>>3477842
>>>/tv/

[Anonymous No.3478563]

Is there a logical argument against adult-child love that isn't "stop doing things I don't like"?

[Anonymous No.3478583]

>>3478563
It has something to do with consent, but I can't be bothered to flesh it too far out.

[Anonymous No.3478587]

Fucking hate when pedophiles try to claim Lolita.

[Anonymous No.3478674]

>>3474629
H-h-how did you backward post an image ._.

[Anonymous No.3478681]

>>3478583
Sounds pretty arbitrary.

"This group of people cannot do this thing because I say so."

[Anonymous No.3478698]

>>3478563
Because it scars children for life.

[Anonymous No.3478701]

>>3478681
>"This group of people cannot do this thing because I say so."

All moral frameworks are of this form.

[Anonymous No.3478702]

I'm a bit of a closet pedo, I would say it's because pedophilia is something very misunderstood, like homosexuality was back in the older times. To write about something like this is to shed light on a the condition, where the media portrays only pedos that are criminals and rapists, rather than show them in an apologetic or sympathetic light.
If I was a writer, I would love to write about it.

[Anonymous No.3478706]

>>3478701
That's the point. At one point it was alright to burn witches, we will look back on our persecution of pedophiles in a similar light.

[Anonymous No.3478710]

>>3478706
How can we say that burning witches was wrong? Because we said so?

[Anonymous No.3478719]

>>3478710
I didn't say it was "wrong", but the general public feels it was wrong, yet looks at pedophiles in a similar light as our ancestors looked upon witches.

All I want is consistency.

[Anonymous No.3478723]

>>3478706
That's a terrible analogy. Real witches never existed in the first place.

[Anonymous No.3478729]

>>3478723
And? They still attacked a group of people for doing things they didn't personally like.

[Anonymous No.3478736]

Funny how your average "progressive" looks back and says "Wow, I can't believe people actually hated homosexuals for being who they are." yet simultaneously hates pedophiles.

[Anonymous No.3478737]

>>3477842
>If you didn't get aroused by Lolita, you need to leave /lit/.
Definitely had an erection during parts of it. I don't understand how the fact she's 12 instead of 18 or whatever and sitting on humbert's lap and his description of her ass tussling about wouldn't arouse you

[Anonymous No.3478746]

>>3478736
Once again, I love how everyone is ignoring the overwhelming, obvious fact: paedophilia causes serious psychological scarring on children, often leading them to suffer from PTSD and a lot of them literally want to murder their abusers if they remember them when they grow up. Homosexuality between two consenting adults is harmless

[Anonymous No.3478761]

>>3478702
If you think HH is sympathetic you might not have been paying attention

[Anonymous No.3478768]

>>3478746
>Homosexuality between two consenting adults is harmless

Adult Diapers, Prolapsed Anuses, Intestinal Ruptures and Internal Bleeding would like to have a word with you among a few others.

[Anonymous No.3478784]

Technically our culture is attracted more and more to "youth" in girls.. and young girls hit puberty around 10..

Naturally if we were animals we would be fornicating with them at an earlier age.

There is an inherent desire and animalistic lust there, but because of society and our minds we must suppress that.

The book is somewhat about secretly embracing these forbidden desires.

[Anonymous No.3478800]

>>3478768
Dont forget the bug catching

[Anonymous No.3478810]

>>3478702
I have nothing but sympathy for pedophiles but i detest child molesters.

[Anonymous No.3478832]

>>3478768
>Adult Diapers, Prolapsed Anuses, Intestinal Ruptures and Internal Bleeding would like to have a word with you among a few others.

Yea, if you take massive dicks all the way up the ass, sure. Most gay guys I know use small, thin dildos and give each other head.

[Anonymous No.3478837]

>>3478698
>implying sex is bad
>implying children arent only convinced they are scarred because liberals brainwash them into thinking sex is bad
>implying they are actually scarred for life by having a temporary natural function with another human being

My mother is Dutch and had me when she was 13-14, and has never said she was "scarred" or complained about sex at a young age, only of what a wonderful and fulfilling life she has had.

This anti-youth movement is strictly a phenomena built up in America by cultural Marxists, just like transgenderism and other strange things that only sprout up in the USA and not other countries, somewhat like autism and many other anti-social complexes brought about by weakness, suppression and denial of human instincts.

[Anonymous No.3478842]

>>3478832
Not the guy you're replying to, but how do you know this?

[Anonymous No.3478846]

>>3478837
>liberals brainwash them into thinking sex is bad

???

[Anonymous No.3478847]

>>3478837
>transgenderism and other strange things that only sprout up in the USA and not other countries

transgenderism has had a very extensive history everywhere but the West

[Anonymous No.3478845]

>>3478746

There's no evidence to back that up.

[Anonymous No.3478869]

>>3478842
I've just heard from a ton of gay guys that they don't want to do anal and just give each other oral sex. Maybe they've experimented or whatnot and don't like it, maybe they haven't.

[Anonymous No.3478872]

>>3478845
To back up what, the thing about abuse scarring children? I don't need to prove that, you can google it

[Anonymous No.3478886]

>>3478746
>a society that stigmatizes adult-child relationships results in a traumatized child

No shit. You don't think latent homosexuals 100 years ago had breakdown after they had sex with a man for the first time in a world that told them it was horrible? Hell, that still goes on today when homosexuality is mainstream. Now multiply that by 1000x for the child seeing as how they are more easily coerced by social norms.

[Anonymous No.3478890]

>>3478872
Do you honestly believe that if a young girl and an older man who loved each other had a consensual sexual relationship somewhere in the woods removed from society, she would be suicidal, traumatized, and want to kill herself?

[Anonymous No.3478899]

YOU ARE LYING TO YOURSELF IF YOU DONT FIND JAILBAIT ATTRACTIVE.

12 YEAR OLD IS NOT A CHILD.

12 YEAR OLD = JAILBAIT

[Anonymous No.3478921]

>>3478846

There is a huge victim culture in America where everyone is a victim of something or another, and doing things you love is bad.

Everyone in the US is babysat until they are 18 in public education, and then thrown out into the world, after they have been maimed by cultural Marxists and left without defenses.

It is no wonder there is such a development problem in the United States, with people having anti-social and anxiety disorders (far worse than sex-induced PTSD) and being virgins in a basement until their mid 30's.

[Anonymous No.3478935]

>jailbait

[Anonymous No.3478988]

>>3478899
I'd say 14+ is jailbait. Something just feels wrong about 12.

[Anonymous No.3479002]

>>3478988
You're an idiot.

Girls develop at different speeds. What if a 12 year old looked around 16 and a 16 year old looked around 12, would you still say finding the older-looking one is "wrong"

I got offered a handjob (and more) by some 13 year old girls in my hometown last year, and they were expreienced enough to know what it meant and had probably had sex a number of times. I refused, being an uptight caucasian autist, but I still think they were smoking hot

[Anonymous No.3479006]

>>3478988

Really?

Most girls at 12 are fully developed.

Girls that havent developed tits or pubic hair are not good to go. Girl who have tits & pubic hair are good to go, regardless if they are 12 or otherwise.

[Anonymous No.3479009]

>>3478988
>Something feels wrong about a static number

How's that brainwashing working out for you?

[Anonymous No.3479011]

>>3479006
>Girls that haven;t developed tits or pubic hair

Sup Australia?

How's that retarded logic coming along?

[Anonymous No.3479020]

>>3479002

not that other guy but talking about sex doesn't mean you've had sex a number of times. we all have the internet now, everyone in elementary school knows what sex is, they just dont understand it.

[Anonymous No.3479022]

>>3479011

I'm a britbong.

I don't see whats wrong with that logic. If their sexual organs aren't developed nature doesn't intend for them to be having sex. If they are developed, they are biologically ready for sex.

Nature doesn't abide by human laws. Having a statutory minimum age to legally have sex is absolutely absurd as it doesn't apply to everybody equally.

What if i (23) was in a relationship with a fully developed 12 year old girl and she was both biologically and mentally ready to have sex?

I'd get thrown in jail whilst some other retard having sex with an immature 16 year old gets away with it.

[Anonymous No.3479025]

>>3479020
I realize that, god knows I do, because I've had to lie about that since I was 16.

But these girls had had sex with some people my friend's knew, and one of them had jerked off my friend (old friend). They knew full well, which is sad, but true.

[Anonymous No.3479028]

>>3479022
nature intends them to have sex for proliferation, we as humans are over that biological shit by now, you sound crazy.

the relationship thing makes sense skill wise, as a 23 year old, you might have more experience and skill talking to this girl and taking advantage of as while the 16 year old won't.

this obviously isn't foolproof, like most cultural constructions, but it's what society goes on

[Anonymous No.3479029]

>>3479022
>I don't see whats wrong with that logic. If their sexual organs aren't developed nature doesn't intend for them to be having sex. If they are developed, they are biologically ready for sex.
>is-ought

[Anonymous No.3479032]

>>3479022
SOme girls don't have large breasts ever, some never grow a substantial amount of pubic hair.

The only issue should be whether they're intelligent or reasonable enough to understand the consequences of their actions and are judged able to make informed decisions (having sex) and whether they have the physiological capacity to have sex without suffering long term from tears etc.

There are many females who are 20 years old who are less capable of making such decisions than many girls aged 13

[Anonymous No.3479053]

Age of Consent is about 12 all across the board in South America, from Argentina to Paraguay to Mexico and more.

>mfw

[Anonymous No.3479061]

>>3479053
Source?

Also, I thought it was legal at 12 as long as your partner is under 17, and for anyone over 17 it's 16 minimum

I think Portugal and Japan both have low age barriers too

[Anonymous No.3479075]

>>3479061
It's on Wikipedia

Some restrictions apply, like male on male sex, or dominate / coercive sex, but it says straight male-female is smiled upon

[Anonymous No.3479096]

>>3479075
I meant the source on the gif., but thanks

[Anonymous No.3479120]

I recall reading that his inspiration to write it came from hearing a story about a monkey at a French zoo, who with encouragement produced the first drawing by an animal, of the bars of his cage. Though he didn't make clear why this expression of torment was to be about fiddling kids. Presumably he was just a pedo.

[Anonymous No.3479143]

>>3479053
>>3479061
>>3479075
I lol'd so hard for some reason

[Anonymous No.3479176]

>>3478583
Is there a logical argument against not allowing post-pubescent human beings to give sexual consent?

Seriously, kids hit puberty at like 11 and 12 these days.

[Anonymous No.3479186]

>>3479061
It is not something very worrisome to most people. Most youths lose their virginities at around their thirteenth birthday in Portugal, it's not smiled upon, it just doesn't bother anyone.
The Age of consent is 14 years old in Portugal, but until 16, older lovers can still be charged with abusing the ingenuity of the youths.

[Anonymous No.3479295]

>>3474632
Seconded. The notes are fantastic. And the guy, Alfred Apple Jr. actually spent time with Nabby, so you get the genuine article.

[Anonymous No.3479319]

>>3479176

maturation, obviously. i would say 16 is a good age, but not an innocent idiotic preteen.

[Kekkafuza !/Swamig5Ow No.3479338]

link to the annotated epub if anyone is interested. enjoy.

>goo(a period goes here)gl/OEhd1

[Anonymous No.3479339]

>>3479176
We do consider post-pubescent people to be able to give sexual consent, you are not post-pubescent once you've 'hit' puberty, you are pubescent. You remain pubescent for a little less than ten years, or more abstractly, you remain adolescent for around ten years. It's not PRECISELY ten years, and 18 is not an age at which we are universally mature, there is no such age, but we universalize 18 because it's the point at which you've been roughly educated and we can't exactly restrain you. Anyone not mature (11 and 12 year olds) is able to be manipulated into doing things with little understanding of how it may traumatize them, or how it may endanger them, or at least little consideration of it.

If you keep begging for shit to be absolutely 'rational', consistent, and non-arbitrary, you ought to know that there is no moral system with these qualities, it's unattainable, and your attraction to kids is itself irrational, inconsistent, and arbitrary.

I don't personally have anything against repressed hebephiles, I don't think that it's a mental illness, and it's to some extent historically precedent. But I hate that I've only had a conversation with one in which they've cherrypicked, projected, deluded themselves, and called for the dismantlement of our most salient social order all because they can't get their dick wet. And at every step, they think they've got the progressive view of things, that they're the unjustly persecuted minority in all of this.

[Anonymous No.3479412]

>>3479096
Actress is Sophie Marceau

one of her early movies, maybe La Boum 2

[Anonymous No.3479422]

>>3479338

I'm afraid to follow that link.

4chan has lied to me before...

[Anonymous No.3479429]

>>3474436
Why wouldn't he?

[Kekkafuza !/Swamig5Ow No.3479445]

>>3479422
I'm a good guy, anon.

[Anonymous No.3479450]

>>3479339
>m-my feelings say so

0/10

[Anonymous No.3479483]

>>3479450
>Everyone else's feelings say so and you'll get penalized if you act on yours.

[Anonymous No.3479568]

>>3479053
Not in Guyana.
We changed it to 16 a few years ago... or made it fool proof to go to jail if caught with a girl under sixteen. A lot of people had sex with underage girls and got off because the law had loop holes or what not.
Also many farmers in the rural areas had(probably still do it) a saying: "me mek em so me tek em". That referrers to his taking his daughter's virginity when she started to develop "bush" aka pubic hair.

[Anonymous No.3479642]

>>3479568

Guyana knows whats up.

[Anonymous No.3481925]

>>3479061
L'amour braque

[Anonymous No.3481941]

>>3478837
dude your mother wasn't fully mature to fathom the consequences of her actions. I bet having a child that young made it hard for her to enjoy her youth and get education. There's a lot of responsibility in taking care of a child. How about your father? Did he stick around?
Because liberals like to push single parent homes and fatherless homes are some of the worst.

[Anonymous No.3482111]

>>3474436
because he was trying to make a point about how you can be the most cultivated, genteel, handsome looking guy in the world and be totally revoltingly screwed up on the inside. hh is an over the top parody of the european intellectual, always talking about proust, psychology, he says something about watching russian silent film s at one point.
nabokov wanted to make a point about "lovers of beauty"
also he talks shit about american culture too.

[Anonymous No.3482173]

>>3482111
>because he was trying to make a point...
I thought he was only trying to make money by writing a book that's 'spicy' and controversial enough to make the bestseller list, without compromising the 'elite' allure for those who read purely for status.

[Anonymous No.3484167]